About your Search

20120930
20121008
STATION
MSNBC 23
MSNBCW 23
CSPAN 8
CNN 7
CNNW 7
WHUT (Howard University Television) 5
CNBC 3
CSPAN2 3
KNTV (NBC) 2
KQED (PBS) 2
WBAL (NBC) 2
WETA 2
WJLA (ABC) 2
( more )
LANGUAGE
English 116
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 116 (some duplicates have been removed)
. it was the theory that president george w. bush, remember this, had a listening device implanted in his suit while he was debating john kerry. the problem with that george w. bush conspiracy theory of course was always that john kerry absolutely destroyed george w. bush in that debate when bush was supposedly wearing a listening device. so if he was wearing a listening device whoever was supposedly whispering in the president's ear was not whispering things that helped him. that's always the part i didn't understand. but the 2012 version of that theory now is that mitt romney cheated in the debate against president obama this week not by having somebody feed him the answers through an ear piece but rather by bringing the illegal crib sheet on to the debate stage with him. you see, previous debate rules have set out very clearly that, quote, no props, notes, charts, diagrams, or other writings or other tangible things may be brought into the debate by any candidate and yet have a look at this damning evidence. this is at the very beginning of the debate on wednesday night and as you'll be able to s
. it was clear by the microphones while george w. bush was talking. it played into a larger narrative into the campaigns. it re-inforced what the audience thought about the candidates. >> when gore sighed endlessly and moaned during the debate and we saw that on television, it just emphasized the idea that he was arrogant and condescending, something people were already concerned about. when nixon was sweating, there was some sense that he was already shifty and there was an anxiety in his soul as well as his body. >> that's what the question in this campaign is about. >> reporter: in a later debate that year gore appeared to invade the personal space of bush. >> i believe i can. >> reporter: a move which made him look awkward compared to his relaxed opponent. in 1992 george h.w. bush was caught twice by cameras glancing at his watch during a town hall debate with voters which reinforced the suggestion he was disengaged and uninterested. >> when something is as close as it is now a small shift may create a forward movement in one direction or another. that's why these debates become g
remember back in 2004, george w. bush got obliterated by john kerry in the first debate. it was one of the worst performances in a debate i've ever seen. remember he asked for the extra time? then he'd just look in the camera and go, it's hard. it's hard. and yet he still won. this is not -- this keeps the game going, right? >> it do. i think -- i kept thinking about mark twain. the rumors of romney's political death were greatly exaggerated, but twain still died. >> well, there is that. god. thank you this morning for that insight. >> can we go to breaking news or a developing banner on that one? mark twain, dead. >> still dead. >> still dead. >> but i thought it was as -- i think '04 -- >> you know, he's funnier in central time zone. i'm sorry, go ahead. >> on something. >> you should see the stat yuue they have of willie geist down here. >> it's huge. >> i'm going to cite my -- the person who knows most about politics in my life, my 8-year-old daughter who came in and asked, why is president obama so mad? >> there you go. >> walked by the screen. >> i think that's a really, you k
a challenger is 1992. the incumbent president is george h.w. bush. his major party challenger is a young man from arkansas. there's also this other guy with the big ears and it's the other guy with the big ears who wins the first debate. >> the day after, victory for perot. clinton hold his own. trouble for the president. there's no one scorecard for determining who won and who lost last night, but a consensus does seem to be emerging. ross perot, the star of the night because no one knew what to expect. bill clinton just good enough. and president bush, he'll have to do much better. >> by morning, what had been last night's analysis had become conventional wisdom. in the headlines. on the "today" show. >> clinton did what he had to do and bush did not. >> and in instant polls. >> those polls show the president finishing third among people who watched the first debate. >> the bush people are getting very, very tired of hearing that the president did not hit a home run last night. >> so at this point as a nation, in our entire history as a country, we have had four national attempts of a chal
george w. bush that cost him a lot. - >> rolling his eyes and -- >> the lock box that nobody understood what he was talking about. and the way -- even the way his makeup looked. one of the problems of these debates anymore, it's not just substance, people are looking at eye rolls and body language, george herbert walker bush famously looked at his wristwatch and it cost him. there's every little nuance, there's the transcript and the television tape and i think the tape trumps transcript in the end. >> ultimately does he really have to participate? could. he say, i'm so busy running this country, look what's happening, the amount of time that i have to put into debate prep and the like, do you really think he would come off as a spoiled sport? >> impossible for him to do that. the last time a president tried, what you're essentially calling the rose garden strategy where a president says i'm too busy to get into the american little game doesn't work. he's got to weather through this and, look, he's a great debater and mitt romney, who did a fairly good job during the g ork p runoff. so
might have thought george w. bush had trouble with. >> eliot: you're right. romney came across as smart. that's what affected it. doug, my question was every time i heard the $5 trillion gig, why did the president not turn to him and say if you do not plan to add a $5 trillion revenue loss what loopholes will you close? give us the broad brush outlines because without that, you don't have credibility. it would have seemed to me to be the appropriate response. >> absolutely. he could have just kept pressing him and i -- before the debate, my whole view was the president needs to spend little bit of time on defense and then just go on the offense. because mitt romney is so vulnerable to attacks not only on his current policies but on his previous policies and in being a flip-flopper and certainly his time as a businessman which really didn't come up that much which was surprising. certainly the president didn't press it but you didn't hear a lot about mitt romney talking about and bragging about how he created jobs bec
in 2004 when john kerry was challenging george w. bush and we saw a similar debate performance where the challenger came out swinging, did very, very well. the incumbent president was a little bit on his heels mainly because sometime you're not used to being challenged by somebody in that type of setting. so we move to the next debate. it seems like mitt romney did very well on style, although substance might have been a different matter. >> speaking of substance, a lot of people thought this debate was more informative, but did these issues and ideas connect to the voters? >> i think so. you look at this abroad, there were so many statistics that were at issue. i did think it was a very substantive debate, but going on the substantive part, i think the next 24 hours or so, the obama campaign has the opportunity to seize on some of the facts that mitt romney was citing. one of the things he talked about, he said my tax plan isn't going to benefit wealthy high income americans, but every tax analysis out there shows that the wealthiest are going to be the ones who would end up getting
in 2004 when president george w. bush choked in the first of his three debates against john kerry. there was a strong performance against john edwards. cheney took one for the team playing the attack dog and allowing bush to keep his presidential hands clean. although i'd like to see a little more heat from president obama in debate number two, he can still keep it cool and classy while letting biden go all the way off the leash. but even before the first presidential debate, the match-up between the two guys on the bottom of the tickets promise to be a must-watched event. what we saw in the debate between president obama and governor romney was an exchange of ideas. both share a practical approach to stimulating economic growth but have different ways of getting us there. the two guys that we're going to be watching on thursday, pragmatism doesn't begin to describe them. pugilistic, not pragmatic describes these guys. get ready for a clash of the i had i can't logs. they're champions of the sweet science of political and economic thought of their respective parties. the golden bo
forward to 1982. george h.w. bush was on the ropes over bill clinton when casper weinberger was imply indicated in the iran/contra scandal shortly before election day. bad news for bush that he did not need. in 2004 a classic october surprise. osama bin laden released a video on october 29th just four days before election day in a raz orthin race between president bush and john kerry. three years after 9/11 it served as a reminder of the terrorist threat and strategists in both parties believed helped president bush. more recently the term october surprise has come to mean a seismic event in the fall of an election year though most have centered around foreign policy others have been about the economy like in 2008. when the economy imploded, john mccain's advisers say his campaign collapsed along with it and never recovered. historians say in order for an october surprise to have a real 11th hour impact it has to feed into a narrative that already exist, whether it's carter's ineffectiveness or questions about mccain's credentials on the economy. >> it's not so much that suddenly eure
from the campaign despite the fact if you look at george w. bush it's been enormous and lasted because of the youthfulness of the nominees. if you look at the supreme court, there's the martin quinn score, trying to come up with a measure of the court's ideology. we have a graphic showing how it's moved over time. the court is very, very liberal after fdr gets over the impasse, the court striking down legislation. he threatens it with court packing. it's a disaster and he gets to appoint a lot of justices. then the famous court in the 1960s that gets us mir randa and a host of other decisions, very little court. down, if you look at the bottom, 2010, the argument. we have the most conservative court ever right now. so, people should keep that in mind as they think about the election and the possibility of opening up. bar brarks you said life experience matters on the court. that segways to who could we imagine being on the court if barack obama is reelected and has to replace the justice and who if mitt romney were elected? >> well, in terms of obama, the great question the democratic
? whatever else you say about george w. bush, he was very good at pretending to be the sort of down home, you know, texas guy that you could have a beer with. remember, that was his great act, and ronald reagan before him did the same thing. bill clinton, lord knows, that's what it was all about with that guy. and this guy, i mean, can't do it at all. by the way, that's also the magic of the tea party movement. >> can't you imagine having some caviar with mitt romney? bellinis? >> with special spoons you have to eat it with. it can't be silver. it's got to be whatever it is. i'm sure mitt romney can tell you all about it. he just can't switch it on. not only that, this is the republican party and conservatism generally has been coasting on this notion, this sort of populist aura that hoverses around them and he's the opposite, you know. he's -- i was reading this great story in "rolling stone" the other day by matt taibbi about how mitt romney is like all of the terrible movie villains of the last 30 years. you know, he's the rich fraternity boy that's such a snob to the guys in animal house,
and a lot in the media treat president obama like he's the challenger. what president george w. bush did when he was governor of texas is said i want to reduce taxes across the board and i want to make sure we have a balanced budget. he wasn't very specific during the campaign, and when he became president, he released a series of principles that went to capitol hill that said these are the measures that meet my -- >> here is the problem with that though, ron. people who have assessed his mathematics have deemed them to be completely impossible. michael, this is just in from mitt romney on how he'll pay for his massive 20% across the board tax cut. take a listen. >> everybody is going to get up to a $17,000 deduction and you can use your charitable deduction or your home mortgage deduction or others, health care deduction, and you can full that $17,000 bucket and higher income people might have a lower number. or you could do it by the same method that boll/simpson did by limiting deductions. >> it's bucket and spades and he'll work it out with congress. is that a plausible response? >>
's got to do what george w. bush did in 2000 at one point in the evening and run the board. he's got to win all of these swing states. >> he does. the good news, it's headed the right direction. >> he can do it. >> absolutely. in late september, early october 2000, we were down three to five points. everybody said the campaign was completely screwed up. everybody should be fired. george bush went on to win all three debates, run the tables, as you've said, and turn it around and was up three. so it's absolutely possible. and i think this is big stakes. i mean, this is really an opportunity where people -- >> tonight is -- tonight is a huge debate. it really is. >> it's huge for all the obvious reasons. >> for the obvious reasons. >> but there's a lot of people that have heard a lot about romney and really haven't seen him. >> right. >> tonight they're going to get to see him all alone, mano a mano, and it's a real opportunity for them to get a sense of who he is, what he believes because they've just heard a lot. they haven't seen it. they're going to see it tonight. this is a real o
actually make it faster. this is where the obama campaign sees their opportunity. george w. bush, obviously, his prime economic policy was a set of very large tax cuts. they did not have a very positive effect on the economy, even before the recession. it was a very, very weak expansion. and so governor romney has come in and he's proposed very, very large tax cuts again. and he hasn't wanted, in order to get away from the bush part, he hasn't wanted to explain them too much. in fact, paul ryan, his running mate says, the math is just too hard. but it really isn't. and i would imagine the obama administration, or obama's going to go through tonight, you really only need to know two numbers about romney's tax plan, one is $480 billion. that's the cost of it in 2015, just to pick one year. and the other is $251 billion. that's the amount that will go to very wealthy families. now, mitt romney's promise, his tax plan won't cost a dime on the deficit. so he somehow needs to get $480 billion out of the tax code by closing breaks and loopholes, seems like the mortgage interest deduction, and also
under president obama as compared to the george w. bush years. >> dave: from george w. bush and not free from criticism. 4.9 trillion dollar increase in the nation's debt. but here we are three years into the obama presidency talking 5.36 trillion dollar increase in our nation's debt. that's pretty simple to fact check. i'm surprised joe biden continues to bait those fact checkers, with statements like that. that's a pretty-- that's a slam-dunk. >> alisyn: because people don't listen to his speeches with the calculator out and listen with their guts and resonates. they have been saying the same thing for the better part of almost four years so it must be working on the campaign trail with them. >> dave: and doing some hypnotizing before that. stare into the pen. >> alisyn: all right. let's get to your headlines, because, to tell you about right now. there was another insider attack that claimed the life of a soldier and contractor. 2000 american troops killed in afghanistan sense the war began. iran's president ahmadnejad says threats mean nothing, and the u.s. does not allow iran the ac
space of george w. bush in 2000, it hurt him. so it's those -- this is a theatrical event as much as it is policy. >> jennifer: so great. i can hardly wait. i totally love having you come inside "the war room" and bring us this sort of view from history. historian douglas brinkley joining us. thanks so much. after the break, when it comes to our views on public unions, well, let's just say there is a teeny bit of daylight between myself and our next guest. it will be an interesting conversation, i can promise you that and a little later, brett ehrlich picks up the presidential debate ball where douglas brinkley left off and he drops it. >> the key changes to the debate format that will change the face of american discourse forever! don't go away. you'd spot movement, gather intelligence with minimal collateral damage. but rather than neutralizing enemies in their sleep you'd be targeting stocks to trade. well, that's what trade architect's heat maps do. they make you a trading assassin. trade architect. td ameri
political question, obama uses the bush middle class cuts, but that's just an extension of what george w. bush put in place. what romney is saying, he's going to up the ante from here. why doesn't mitt romney make that case? >> you saw romney go almost halfway, he talked about the tax cut, but he has to go back to that reagan model and talk about this and talk about that take home pay. they have to have an idea of what they're getting in a law. that's so important for milt romney in a debate. he has to bring people, he has to bring heart to supply side politics and that's what happened. this is the most important day in mitt romney's life, there's no question, david's going to remind us that obama is leading in the polls, this is really make or break. do you think romney will do it? do you expect to hear a sharp, clear message on lowering middle class tax rates, and do you think he'll do it? and a pro growth package. >> i these he'll make a passioned plea for the economic tax cuts he's already talked about. i don't think he's going to pound home that message. i think paul ryan did. maybe
with george w. bush, which cost him a lot -- sign in and moaning throughout the debate the george w. bush, which cost compared the -- cost him the debate. if there are not a lot of those 47% comments that president running mate -- did i say president running? -- mitt romney? mitt romney apologized. host: let's look at tom and said governor romney made yesterday about the debate. -- that governor romney made yesterday about the debate. [video clip] >> there is a lot of interest, people want to know who will win, who will score, and in my view it is not winning and losing, or the people themselves, the president and myself. it is about something bigger than that. these debates are about the pathway for word for america that we would choose, and the american people will have to make their choice. i look forward to these debates. i am delighted that we will have three debates. he will be a conversation with the american people that will span almost an entire month. host: mitt romney on the campaign trail yesterday. we have seen the candidates talk about this low expectation game. howard kurtz
. president carter defeated >> and now he works with and with george w bush as well. and the time i was interviewing president bush was when i was doing a piece on the former president. in the same i don't understand what's going on in washington. said when i was minority leader in the house and my father and your father was the majority leader of the house, he said we would get in the cab together and we would say what are we going to argue about? and he said this is a legitimate debate. and it was part of -- for heaven's sakes, we were the leader of our party. but then we would go back to the hill and be able to be civil with each other and have a drink and be friends. you know, now that's not even close. i mean, there's nothing like that going on in washington today. i have my own idea why but i am much more interested in hearing yours. so i think i'll start with you, senator daschle, because you didn't do it and now you are, so why? >> well, first of all, i disagree a little bit because onand i worked together on a lot of private things. i'm glad we did. it's harder to do that t
took over when the george w. bush cataclysm was gaining steam. shouldn't we all be overjoyed? not if you're hyper partisan voice of corporate plutocacy like jack welch who tweeted out the following message. unbelievable jobs numbers these chicago guys will do anything. can't debate so change numbers. come on, jack. the notion of the department of labor plays games with these numbers for political reasons is silly ludicrous, and insulting to government workers who have reported news, good and bad faithfully for many decades. it strikes me, jack, that there have been a few more cases of corporate gamesmanship with financial numbers than cases where the government was not honest in the past few years. in fact, didn't your company g.e. have an accounting issue led to a big sec settlement not so long ago? now that you've made this outlandish claim, where is your proof, your evidence, the facts to substantiate you're certification, or is it just a partisan screed? you might remember when my office charged ge then under your leadership with a range of i am preprity we had the proof
goes mitt romney's way. a big swing in the polls is possible. in 2000, al gore was ahead of george w. bush until their debates. gore lost nine points in the polls and he lost the white house. i'm steve handelsman, news4. >>> a white house official acknowledged today that hackers tried to infiltrate the white house computer system. the official said the attack was prevented and that the target was an unclassified network. the white house account contradicts an earlier story, that reported that hackers from china had broken into one of the u.s. government's most sensitive computer networks. today officials would not say whether the white house attack has been linked to china. >>> to a developing story involvie ining an american airl flight. it made an emergency landing today. the pilot got sick shortly after takeoff. a co-pilot took control. the plane landed safely in st. louis about noon eastern time. the pilot was rushed to a hospital. a new crew took over and flew the passengers on to dallas. the pilot's illness and condition are not known. >>> there was another problem on an americ
, and then they allowed him to purchase a bit in a single debate. it was only because george h.w. bush and clinton pushed for his inclusion. four years later, ross perot runs for president again. he had $29 million in taxpayer funds. 79% of the american people wanted to see him in the debates. yet, he was excluded. this time, the candidates wanted to keep him out. bob dole was desperate to keep him out of the debate because he thought that ross perot would take votes away from him. bill clinton did not want anyone to watch the debates. he wanted a non event. bill clinton of the two -- agreed to include ross perot on the condition that one of the debates was canceled, and the other was scheduled opposite the world series of baseball, and there were no follow-up questions. that is what the american people got. exactly as president clinton wanted, by design, the lowest debate audience in history. who took the heat? not the candidates. the polls after the debate showed 50% of the public blamed the commission. only 13% blamed president clinton, 5% blame the bob dole. the role that the commission played along
of george w. bush and the republicans who were in office prior to the democrats taking control in 2009, so we need time to fix it, and by the way, the president will also say that he wants to increase taxes on people like mitt romney to help pay down some of that debt. >> reporter: we just put of that graphic there showing the $16 trillion of debt and there are so many digits it almost doesn't fit on the tv screen across the screen there, as you can see. but haven't americans in some way become number to astronomical numbers? how serious is this in. >> they have become number. is it the new normal this massive spilling of red ink but it raises three problems which i don't think the nation has got even to grips with yet. number one our economy is smaller than our debt. we look like europe, we know what happened there. number two we are spending $9 billion every week just paying interest on this debt, about a quarter of it goes overseas. and number 3, we are paying for this debt by printing money. so here is the question, allison, what happens when we stop printing as we inevitably will at s
started at car max -- we started car max when george w. bush was president and george h.w. bush, then bill clinton, then george w. bush, then barack obama. the fundamental decisions that businesses make particularly domestic businesses are driven really by what's going on with the consumer. and i think the only thing that would worry me is if i really believed that romney and ryan were going to get elected and they were going to come in and dramatically cut government spending, that would lead to a recession, and that would worry me. but i don't think they're going to get elected, but more importantly, i don't think they would do that if they did get elected. nears no republican that ever has. i think ceos are focused on what the consumer is doing, what are their customers doing. and as jim cramer said a little earlier, i think between 23 and 27 minutes of the world's focus was on this last night. the people have moved on to more substantive topics now. >> so the bottom line is that it does not matter for a domestic business who gets elected? when it comes to the fundamental -- >> i think
of george w. bush by two points. bush was leading him by about three points going into the last weekend. and went all the way to the supreme court. at this point in 1980, carter was leading reagan by four. there was a gallup with five days left that had him up by six. so i'm not particularizing this to chuck, but the pollsters and the press don't decide who shows up. the people who decide who shows up are the people knocking on doors, ringing door bells, making phone calls. and i think there's going to be a lot of surprises. >> but ed rendell, a lot of republicans like ralph like to go back to the reagan days. the difference is, as i have discussed this week with some pollsters, he was 20 points up after the convention. we had seen his ability to create wide swings. we haven't seen that in this race. it's much more polarized. right? >> no question. and ralph is right to some extent about the polls. but, look, we all know that the challenger gets a big bump in the first debate. no question about it. just appearing on the stage with the president, looking presidential, and boy, mitt romne
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 116 (some duplicates have been removed)